[ale] What's my job title?

[Alex Carver]

I agree that's an extreme viewpoint.  All of the cases cited were people
that had degrees in engineering.  My understanding of the rules here
based on the counsel interpretation of law would allow that a person
holding a degree in engineering is indeed an engineer.  The licensing
would occur if someone wanted to claim PE status rather than just status
as an engineer.

On 2017-05-10 08:52, Scott Plante wrote:
> If you can't get to the NYT article, here are a couple of others. Apparently it's not that unusual for Oregon to go after people using the term engineer. 
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/26/after-challenging-red-light-cameras-oreg
> http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/beaverton_man_claims_oregon_st.html 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Alex Carver" <agcarver+ale at acarver.net> 
> To: ale at ale.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 9:19:14 PM 
> Subject: Re: [ale] What's my job title? 
> 
> The quote in the bizjournal link is roughly what I see in our documents 
> ("...special knowledge...acquired by engineering education...") 
> 
> I can't get to the NY Times link. 
> 
> But, I have to trust our internal counsel on the matter and they seem to 
> be in alignment with NC. California is similar, they use the same 
> "special knowledge" statement. 
> 
> On 2017-05-09 17:09, DJ-Pfulio wrote: 
>> Don't claim to be an Engineer in Oregon without a PE. 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/business/traffic-light-fine.html 
>>
>> NC's Take on "Engineer" titles: 
>> http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html 
>>
>> I tried to stay with reputable sources. 
>>
>> On 05/09/2017 06:42 PM, Alex Carver wrote: 
>>> On 2017-05-09 15:29, DJ-Pfulio wrote: 
>>>> On 05/09/2017 04:01 PM, Alex Carver wrote: 
>>>>> My office-mate does a lot of circuit and mechanical designs for his 
>>>>> work. However his degree is in astrophysics but he isn't permitted to 
>>>>> call himself an engineer because that's technically not his training. 
>>>>> The rationale comes from legal requirements. So anyone at work with an 
>>>>> engineering degree can be called an engineer. My office-mate can call 
>>>>> himself scientist or physicist. 
>>>>
>>>> Source please. 
>>>
>>> The source is internal employer legal documentation that I wouldn't be 
>>> able to send out. That documentation is based on interpretation of 
>>> various laws by internal counsel. So they say the sheepskin holds the 
>>> title.